• We will be taking the forum down for maintenance at [3:30 PM CDT] - in 25 minutes. We should be down less than 1 hour.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrat ideology on display

I don't think the demographics of the party are all that important. I tend to be MUCH more interested in the effectiveness of the organization. I'm MUCH more interested in finding people who can identify the fundamental needs of a community and implement methods of meeting those needs through permanent solutions that require community involvement and recognition that the ONLY way to achieve a permanent solution is with personal involvement from the ground up.


I think the demographics are important, as is the rest of what you say. If you wish to refuse to answer what I ask, just say so. At least then you are being honest. Nonetheless, you are avoiding answering what I asked of you. Once more, "Do you disagree with having the demographics of a party, Democrat or Republican, match the demographics of the community? Do you agree?" You can always agree, but add a qualifier that you don't think it is very important.
 
I think the demographics are important, as is the rest of what you say. If you wish to refuse to answer what I ask, just say so. At least then you are being honest. Nonetheless, you are avoiding answering what I asked of you. Once more, "Do you disagree with having the demographics of a party, Democrat or Republican, match the demographics of the community? Do you agree?" You can always agree, but add a qualifier that you don't think it is very important.

I thought I answered that. If you're asking whether I think having the racial demographics of the party match the racial demographics of the community is inappropriate then no, not necessarily. What I'm saying is that it need not be a primary consideration.
 
Better than hitching their wagon to the Republicans where they would barely be people.

It wasn't the Dems who were accusing Obama of being Kenyan (we all know the not so hidden subtext of that claim). It wasn't the Dems who were trying to make it harder for black people to vote with voter ID laws.

Not hidden at all. The purpose was to attempt to show that Obama was ineligible for the presidency. That is politics. I know of nowhere in the country that anyone tried to prevent blacks from voting.
 
Better than hitching their wagon to the Republicans where they would barely be people.

It wasn't the Dems who were accusing Obama of being Kenyan (we all know the not so hidden subtext of that claim). It wasn't the Dems who were trying to make it harder for black people to vote with voter ID laws.

From what we've been hearing from the recent Dem. forum trying to figure out hwy they lost the election, Dems. consider blacks to be little more than votes. Conservatives consider blacks to be people, we don't consider them to be "black people", just "people". We don't give a rat's ass about your identity, we care about what kind of person you are, how responsible you are and how much you contribute to your society. We ask that you be a good person, that you take responsibility for your actions and that you make a positive contribution to our society. That's pretty where the rubber meets the road for most us. Dems. seem to think that a person's identity has some bearing on their value in our society.
 
I thought I answered that. If you're asking whether I think having the racial demographics of the party match the racial demographics of the community is inappropriate then no, not necessarily. What I'm saying is that it need not be a primary consideration.


What you are saying answers an "if" of your own design. You are skirting my question. You put my question into your own words so as to give an answer you wish. Compare the answers you just gave to the questions I asked and tell me there is a matching logic and what that is.
 
Not hidden at all. The purpose was to attempt to show that Obama was ineligible for the presidency. That is politics. I know of nowhere in the country that anyone tried to prevent blacks from voting.


If you mean by "...tried to prevent blacks from voting." that blacks were physically prevented from voting...But I don't know what you mean. I measure such things by outcome. If a restriction of some kind is put into place for a given reason, who is most affected (disparate impact)? By that measure, almost every one of the so-called vote protective measures have prevented more blacks from voting than other demographic groups. Regardless of "trying", do you agree or disagree with the outcome I describe?
 
What you are saying answers an "if" of your own design. You are skirting my question. You put my question into your own words so as to give an answer you wish. Compare the answers you just gave to the questions I asked and tell me there is a matching logic and what that is.

With all due respect, you seem to be splitting a hair I can't even see. Perhaps you could clarify what it is you're asking.

My current take on your question is whether or not I believe it's appropriate for a committee of a given political party to strive to insure that the racial demographics of the committee match the racial demographics of the community they seek to serve. If your question is different than that then please fill me in and I'll do my best to answer.
 
If you mean by "...tried to prevent blacks from voting." that blacks were physically prevented from voting...But I don't know what you mean. I measure such things by outcome. If a restriction of some kind is put into place for a given reason, who is most affected (disparate impact)? By that measure, almost every one of the so-called vote protective measures have prevented more blacks from voting than other demographic groups. Regardless of "trying", do you agree or disagree with the outcome I describe?

No. I have no idea what a so called vote protective measure is.
 
No question that is area that needs addressing. Democrats have done a great job with their propaganda against Republicans, and Republicans have done a terrible job countering it.

What is a fact is the Democrat party has abandoned Black Communities, and thankfully, they are beginning to cut through all the election year platitudes to see what has been going on. The Democrat party has gone all in to pander to the Latino and illegal alien communities. They've poured $10's of billions into their causes, while all but ignoring the economic harm they are causing in Black communities. That fact has become as vivid as a sunset in Hawaii.

I don't see Black's moving towards the Republican side, as the propaganda from Dems is too entrenched. I do see Blacks moving away from the Democrat party as the truth sinks in regarding the Dems.

"Propaganda from Dems is too entrenched"? Seriously?

There is no propaganda. The fact of the matter is that the blacks have moved to the Democratic Party for the same reason racist southern whites moved to the Republican Party at the same time. It all started in the late 1960s and early 70s, with the GOP's "Southern Strategy". Nixon basically was able to consolidate the votes of the racist southern whites, the Wallace supporters, by this dog whistle talk of "states' rights"- basically explaining that if they voted for him, he would stop enforcing civil and constitutional rights for the colored people living in their states. It worked, better than I think they ever imagined.

Here is Kevin Phillips, The GOP and Nixon's chief political strategist, to explain the thinking behind this at the time (the quote is from a 1970 NYT interview):

"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote anyway and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. We're talking huge numbers here. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."

And of course, as a consequence of this brilliant strategy, within the course of a few short years, the transformation of the south to solid red states was complete.

"Nixon's advisers recognized that they could not appeal directly to voters on issues of white supremacy or racism. White House Chief of Staff H. R. Haldeman noted that Nixon "emphasized that you have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognized this while not appearing to."[43] With the aid of Harry Dent and South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond, who had switched to the Republican Party in 1964, Richard Nixon ran his 1968 campaign on states' rights and "law and order." "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

(cont'd on next post)
 
(cont'd)

This strategy was pursued into the 1980s. Here is Lee Atwater, GOP strategist, in a 1981 interview later published in Southern Politics in the 1990s by Alexander P. Lamis:

"Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 . . . and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster...

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Ni--er, ni--er, ni--er." By 1968 you can't say "ni--er" anymore— that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Ni--er, ni--er, ni--er."

So in pursuing this strategy, in 1980, Republican candidate Ronald Reagan made a much-noted appearance at the Neshoba County Fair in Mississippi talking about "states' rights". The location of the speech, interestingly enough, was only a few miles from the city associated with the 1968 murder of several civil rights leaders. His speech there contained the phrase "I believe in states' rights", an ominous return to Nixon's rhetoric. Reagan's campaigns used racially coded rhetoric, making attacks on the "welfare state" and leveraging resentment towards affirmative action. Dan Carter explains "Reagan showed that he could use coded language with the best of them, lambasting welfare queens, busing, and affirmative action as the need arose."

During the 1988 U.S. presidential election, the Willie Horton attack ads run against Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis built upon the Southern strategy in a campaign that reinforced the notion that Republicans best represent conservative whites with traditional values. Lee Atwater and Roger Ailes worked on the campaign as George H. W. Bush's political strategists, and upon seeing a favorable New Jersey focus group response to the Horton strategy, Atwater recognized that an implicit racial appeal could work outside of the Southern states. The subsequent ads featured Horton's mugshot and played on fears of black criminals. Atwater said of the strategy, "By the time we're finished, they're going to wonder whether Willie Horton is Dukakis' running mate."

"Bob Herbert wrote in 2005 that "The truth is that there was very little that was subconscious about the G.O.P.'s relentless appeal to racist whites. Tired of losing elections, it saw an opportunity to renew itself by opening its arms wide to white voters who could never forgive the Democratic Party for its support of civil rights and voting rights for blacks."[73] Aistrup described the transition of the Southern strategy saying that it has "evolved from a states’ rights, racially conservative message to one promoting in the Nixon years, vis-à-vis the courts, a racially conservative interpretation of civil rights laws—including opposition to busing. With the ascendancy of Reagan, the Southern Strategy became a national strategy that melded race, taxes, anticommunism, and religion.""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

Ken Mehlman, Bush's campaign manager and Chairman of the RNC at the time, even admitted that the "southern strategy" had been a formal strategy used by the GOP in 2005, and offered a formal apology to the NAACP in a speech he made to them:

"Republican candidates often have prospered by ignoring black voters and even by exploiting racial tensions," and, "by the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African-American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out. Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

But that was too little too late. The audacity it takes now to try to pin it on any propaganda by the Democratic Party makes the GOP lose even more credibility among everyone outside of their rabid base.
 
Last edited:
This is a DNC Chair Candidates Forum - https://www.c-span.org/video/?422372-1/joyann-reid-hosts-dnc-chair-candidates-forum

It's almost 2 hours long and there is a lot of discussion regarding why the Democrats lost the election and what needs to be done to win the next election. It talks about outreach and and where to spend money.

It also talks about race quite a bit and after about half an hour something really struck me. These people were all talking about "doing something for communities of color" and "talking to communities of color" but the underlying reason that ALL of these people were discussing communities of color is because they wanted those votes. After 45 minutes I realized that there had been NO DISCUSSION of problems in these communities, NO DISCUSSION of jobs in these communities, NO DISCUSSION of better education in these communities. It was ALL about how many of these people they could get to vote and vote Democrat.

It was all about how they could convince people to serve the party, not how the party could serve the people. I'm not a Democrat but if I was and if I actually took the time to watch this and digest what's really going on I'd hang my head in shame.


Oh, just for the record, I think that Jamie Harrison kind of gets it and if the DNC votes him in they might just have a chance of coming back.

Man, its almost as if party officials doing a post mortem on why they lost an election would be primarily talking about how to get more votes......

If what you are getting at is that Dems only care about black folk for votes, that's ridiculous. I am a Dem, I care about black folks because I would like to see an end to a vicious cycle of racially biased poverty and criminality. But yes, if I was asked to step into a room and strategize about how to win an election, I would be talking about getting people to vote.....that goes without saying.
 
I thought I answered that. If you're asking whether I think having the racial demographics of the party match the racial demographics of the community is inappropriate then no, not necessarily. What I'm saying is that it need not be a primary consideration.


You continue to avoid answering the question and also change the question yourself, then ask if my question is different than the question you yourself changed and then posed. Here was and is my question:

"Do you disagree with having the demographics of a party, Democrat or Republican, match the demographics of the community? Do you agree?"

You then, in your last post, in so many words, changed “party” to “committee”. That is a meaningful change. Also, while you already answered the first part of the question, continued in your re-assortment to avoid the second part of the question: “Do you agree?”. Which does not ask if you think the point in question is simply appropriate, but that if you agree that political parties should strive to make up the demographics of their own party representatives to match the demographics of the communities they represent. Do you have any questions or can you say whether or not you agree as already asked to do with the party, not the committee?
 
You continue to avoid answering the question and also change the question yourself, then ask if my question is different than the question you yourself changed and then posed. Here was and is my question:

"Do you disagree with having the demographics of a party, Democrat or Republican, match the demographics of the community? Do you agree?"

You then, in your last post, in so many words, changed “party” to “committee”. That is a meaningful change. Also, while you already answered the first part of the question, continued in your re-assortment to avoid the second part of the question: “Do you agree?”. Which does not ask if you think the point in question is simply appropriate, but that if you agree that political parties should strive to make up the demographics of their own party representatives to match the demographics of the communities they represent. Do you have any questions or can you say whether or not you agree as already asked to do with the party, not the committee?

From what I can see, he is saying get the right people and if it matches demographically -- great. If it doesn't, so what...you still have the right people in place.

It sounds like you are trying to force an answer of "Yes, it should match" or "No, it should not". His answer repeatedly is "It doesn't matter with the right people".

If you changed your question to "Do you agree that the demographics of a party, Democrat or Republican, must match the demographics of the community?", it seems Lutherf's answer is "no" (and I agree).

If you changed your question to "Do you agree that if the party leaders do not match the demographics of the community those leaders can still be effective?", it seems Lutherf's answer is "yes" (and I agree).

It really is looking like you are splitting a hair we can't see.
 
No. I have no idea what a so called vote protective measure is.


Like voter ID requirements, restricting voting days and times, etc. "Protective" as in protecting voters from fraudulent voting.
 
It also talks about race quite a bit and after about half an hour something really struck me. These people were all talking about "doing something for communities of color" and "talking to communities of color" but the underlying reason that ALL of these people were discussing communities of color is because they wanted those votes. After 45 minutes I realized that there had been NO DISCUSSION of problems in these communities, NO DISCUSSION of jobs in these communities, NO DISCUSSION of better education in these communities. It was ALL about how many of these people they could get to vote and vote Democrat.

As compared to Trump, who really really cares about those inner city poor folk, and engaged in deep discussion by calling inner cities a disaster?
 
From what I can see, he is saying get the right people and if it matches demographically -- great. If it doesn't, so what...you still have the right people in place.

It sounds like you are trying to force an answer of "Yes, it should match" or "No, it should not". His answer repeatedly is "It doesn't matter with the right people".

If you changed your question to "Do you agree that the demographics of a party, Democrat or Republican, must match the demographics of the community?", it seems Lutherf's answer is "no" (and I agree).

If you changed your question to "Do you agree that if the party leaders do not match the demographics of the community those leaders can still be effective?", it seems Lutherf's answer is "yes" (and I agree).

It really is looking like you are splitting a hair we can't see.


Then the answer would be "No". It's a yes or no question, after which qualifications and explanations can be made to flesh-out one's position.
 
Then the answer would be "No". It's a yes or no question, after which qualifications and explanations can be made to flesh-out one's position.

You are not asking a yes or no question. Dorsai's analysis is spot on.
 
Like voter ID requirements, restricting voting days and times, etc. "Protective" as in protecting voters from fraudulent voting.

I don't see how showing an ID to vote restricts anything and, if it does, it restricts it for everyone. If voting days and times are restricted, they are restricted for every one. I reject all of that.
 
I don't see how showing an ID to vote restricts anything and, if it does, it restricts it for everyone. If voting days and times are restricted, they are restricted for every one. I reject all of that.


Showing an ID restricts those that cannot show an ID from voting. That's a restriction. That a restriction restricts everyone is a restriction. Apparently, you are arguing that a restriction is not a restriction.
 
You are not asking a yes or no question. Dorsai's analysis is spot on.


Again you avoid the question. You're getting into philosophy while introducing another party in hopes of confusing the matter. It really is a simple question. Let me eliminate the first part, and ask only the second part, in context: Do you agree that the demographics of a party, Democrat or Republican, should match the demographics of the community they represent?

It's a yes or no answer. You can add whatever qualification or explanation you wish to flesh-out your position in this matter. Or, you are a genuine Troll.
 
Again you avoid the question. You're getting into philosophy while introducing another party in hopes of confusing the matter. It really is a simple question. Let me eliminate the first part, and ask only the second part, in context: Do you agree that the demographics of a party, Democrat or Republican, should match the demographics of the community they represent?

It's a yes or no answer. You can add whatever qualification or explanation you wish to flesh-out your position in this matter. Or, you are a genuine Troll.

I'm a troll? You go down this absurd line of questioning and then figure I'm the one who's a troll?

What I'm saying now and have been saying all along is that, unlike you, I do not consider the demographics of a given community to have any bearing whatsoever on what the demographics of a political party or committee, which the community chooses to represent them, should look like. I'll take that one step further. I also believe that decisions regarding the racial makeup these committees which dictate that the demographics should match the community are inherently racist.
 
Showing an ID restricts those that cannot show an ID from voting. That's a restriction. That a restriction restricts everyone is a restriction. Apparently, you are arguing that a restriction is not a restriction.

You can't get a driver license without ID. You can't open a bank account without ID. No ID, no passport. Same restrictions. I'm not saying that showing ID is not a restriction. I'm saying that it is an appropriate one.
 
I'm a troll? You go down this absurd line of questioning and then figure I'm the one who's a troll?

What I'm saying now and have been saying all along is that, unlike you, I do not consider the demographics of a given community to have any bearing whatsoever on what the demographics of a political party or committee, which the community chooses to represent them, should look like. I'll take that one step further. I also believe that decisions regarding the racial makeup these committees which dictate that the demographics should match the community are inherently racist.


“Unlike you”? I’ve never said what I believe on this point. Just like you tried to change the question, now you’re putting words in my mouth.

Your saying that a demographic representation by a political party of the community does not achieve its perceived purpose, as you see it, does not answer my question. I wasn’t asking about efficacy or bearing of doing so on outcomes. All I asked was for a direct answer of whether you agreed or not with having that demographic representation. “No” would have sufficed. Instead, you gave reasons without an answer. I could have drawn a conclusion based on your reasoning, but that would be an assumption, like you made with “unlike you”.

I don’t agree that the demographic makeup of a party (candidates, representatives, staff, etc.), should, or must, represent the community. It will do so organically, with some affect by individuals of the party who may make conscious or subconscious decisions with some amount of bias.

I agree that a party should not dictate the racial makeup of its own National Committee, as you stated. However, if over time disparate impact is shown, then the demographic makeup should be addressed.
 
You can't get a driver license without ID. You can't open a bank account without ID. No ID, no passport. Same restrictions. I'm not saying that showing ID is not a restriction. I'm saying that it is an appropriate one.


And there’s lots of things we can do without the type of ID in question. Voting is one of them. There is nothing “appropriate” about doing something that is unnecessary for which there is no purpose that needs to be met. What is the purpose of the ID and what evidence of any significance is there to support the need to fulfill that purpose? The last thing I want is the government invading more of my privacy.
 
Back
Top Bottom